Originally Posted by chasm
Point one: a strawman argument, in that you are refuting a point I never made. In my original post I suggested that if slow play were the issue, it would be better addressed by excluding high handicappers at busy times rather than discriminating on grounds of gender. So "all women" would not qualify, and you argument falls.
Point two: if we are taking about mens leagues and womens leagues, I'm inclined to agree. But the argument was about whether times should be reserved for men to the exclusion of women outside of that scenario. And there are plenty of women who both work and can afford to be members of expensive clubs. Remarkably, women are allowed to be doctors and lawyers and CEOs these days. They have no more time for sport during the week than have their male colleagues.
Point three: another strawman argument. I've never suggested that tee times at weekends should be reserved for women, I've said that they shouldn't be reserved for men. My position would be (single-sex competitions aside) that both men and women should be entitled to play on a first come, first served basis.
I've always found it interesting that so many men become irate as soon as it is pointed out that they give themselves privileges that they do not allow women to enjoy. Golf Clubs in my country (and, judging from this thread, country clubs in the States ) are especially prone to these nineteenth-century attitudes. It's time they caught up with the rest of society, imo. But hey, carry on believing that your attitudes are based on logic: it's no skin off my nose.
1.The fact that you believe high handicappers would be a more effective exclusion doesn't make it so. I don't know how it is in England but here there are about 10 to 15 publics to every private country club so the privates draw mostly good golfers, not many handicaps above the mid teens. I'm a 17 myself and I'm an extremely fast golfer. the exception to the good golfer rule at the private club: the good golfer's wife, who's probably a 36.
2. I don't know what the hell the existence of female CEO's has to do with this argument but I'm sure male CEO's outnumber female CEO's by at least a 10 to 1 margin, so what's your point.
3. I never said anything about weekends reserved for women. What I'm saying is that the SATURDAY allotment for the men still leaves them with a typical overcrowded tee time competitive 5 hour window whereas the women can enjoy a wide open TUESDAY morning of golf.
The bottom line is you have made the claim that it IS "discrimination plain and simple". And I'VE always found it interesting that the type of person who is convinced that they automatically become superior people by espousing as many liberalisms as they can, have no problem with accusing people that they don't know of horrible things with absolutely no facts in evidence. For all you know the golf club in question may have done exhaustive research into the equity of this arrangement. Maybe they found out that the overwhelming majority of female members do not, in fact, work on Tuesdays and are, in fact among the highest handicaps. Maybe it was the female members who suggested and voted in this policy. YOU DON'T KNOW. But as long as it feels good to jerk that knee, you go right ahead and do it. That does, after all, make you a better person.